|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This is truth. In my Jade Regent campaign, we were hot on the trail (in book two) of Asvig Longthews. Of course, with the way his name is pronounced it took very little prompting for the halfling cleric to kick the door in and demand to know which of the people inside was "butt fruit."
What do i do?
You seem to ask a question and dismiss the entirety of the responses for some reason or other.
You are pigeonholing yourself unnecessarily by being "The skill guy." There is no skill in the game that can't be overcome by creativity, blunt force trauma, or magic. And you have magic, too.
Combat is a major part of the game. Learn to contribute in it or make sure the other players are fine dragging around a non-contributor. Can't contribute to damage in combat? Cast grease on the badguy's sword, or on the floor. Grab a longspear and make attacks of opportunity, or use the aid another action. Hell, maybe just don't contribute at all. That can be an enjoyable RP decision- maybe your guy is a total coward, or a pacifist, or has some other foible about participating in combat?
It seems like you're really upset that the GM isn't letting you utilize your skills. Talk to him. Maybe see if he won't replace "simple doors" with "strong doors." Work in more social encounters, or traps.
You have ridiculous stats- the equivalent of a 45 point buy. You can find a way to make it work.
Why I have an example of this just the other day from my game. My NG cleric of Sarenrae (Nice for the win!) made a gesture- he gave to a person from a very distant place a copy of his holy text, and a pair of spectacles of understanding as well. The rest of the party objected rather strenuously to simply giving away a 5K piece of loot with no mechanical benefit, even though it was entirely within my character's appropriate scope of behavior.
Apparently when good is actually altruistic, even others who consider themselves good will object. Why? Because truly being good isn't the norm for good players. My story wouldn't be remarkable if players held Good to the same standards as Evil.
See, Set and Ryjin are going on about what I'm talking about.
I suggested a NE character - a Magnificent Bastard sort ala Al Swearengen-- to a GM I was playing with who is really generally a very good GM, and he recoiled in horror. He was convinced my NE character would betray the party at the first opportunity. I was agog- while my NE probably WOULD betray the party, it wouldn't be at the FIRST opportunity- it would be at the BEST opportunity.
I explained that if you're NE, you're motivated entirely by self-interest. Aligning yourself with a group of people who make you stronger and enable you to garner more power, prestige, and wealth makes perfect sense. And I would be absolutely out for the best for the group (and thus, myself) up until the point where I A- didn't need them or B- got an undeniably better offer.
He countered that I would lie, cheat, kill, and steal from teammates. I said that I wouldn't, because my character is not stupid. Just being NE doesn't mean that you have absolutely no self control- it means you don't exercise self-control where it won't benefit you to do it.
I dropped the idea when it became clear we just had very disparate ideas about what a NE, and indeed what any Evil character, would do in a group setting. But it really got me thinking.
Does it sort of feel that, in a perverse sort of way, Evil is held to a higher standard than good?
Everyone assumes the TET is going to go axe-crazy without provocation, or be compelled without recourse to do evil at every opportunity, but no one ever imagines that the good characters are going to be compulsively buying food for the poor instead of better gear, or spending spells to heal lepers and atone for criminals.
Mal: How come you didn't turn on me, Jayne?Jayne: Money wasn't good enough.
Mal: What happens when it is?
Jayne: (smiling) Well... that'll be an interesting day.
How many of you as GMs allow evil characters in your standard non-evil campaign?
How many of you as players have played alongside or as the token evil teammate?
What roles do you guys find most fitting for the TET in terms of group dynamics? Alignment? Classes?
I'm always sort of fond of the TET characters. Be they Jayne from Firefly, Alice Morgan from Luther, Loki from the most recent Thor movie, Jack from ME2, Morrigan from Dragon Age- I feel like the TET can provide a valuable perspective to an otherwise monolithic group of "heroes" (or muderhobos, depending on your group). They can give the opportunity, if played well, of interpersonal friction within the party that doesn't necessarily lead to blows. You can redeem 'em! You can fall to their level! They can provide a pragmatic counterpoint to an otherwise circuitous plan!
Just not in a party with a Paladin. Ever.
First, you have my sympathies for your peanut and/or chocolate allergy.
Second, I used to play quite regularly in a local lodge (which I have recently been a poor attendee), but have also gamed at cons and in other lodges when I travel for work. I have seen all manner and variety of games and gamers, but most frequently when I set down at the table, folks will ask "What does your character do?" Our Warhorn sign-up even includes a slot for class, level, and party role. I'm not saying they need to know your + to hit and damange, but they do want to know, mechanically, what your character does.
While many people can and do roleplay well at our lodge, I see an equal amount of persons attempting to be mechanically unique to stand out from the crowd. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this approach, and indeed, in organized play, given the limited time to accomplish a set goal, sometimes RP opportunities fall by the wayside. When all your character interactions are in 4 and 5 hour increments, you may not know that Buliwyf, Son of Folkvardr became obsessed with armor as a kid because he was slow and his father the blacksmith was convinced he would hurt himself if given weapons to train with, but you would remember that shielded fighter with armor spikes who is nearly impossible to hit and wrecks faces up close.
Two whole pages!?
However do you find the time to read all that?
Oh, I don't know that they would. First, there are quite a few people on this world- Billions, likely- who would object to the suggestion that they aren't capable of grasping their own God, or that God is an "unknown factor".
Second, say you are correct- why then would any person worship demons or evil Gods? They would have to be aware of the very real existence of eternal damnation, and that their actions would be a ticket straight that way.
It would seem that if we assume that dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. suffer from the same limitations and shortcomings that humanity does, and that their definitions of reality are based on perception, then they're no closer to understanding "The Truth" than any of us are. All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
This brings us back to Taldor, in a way. There's no reason that banning a single Good faith (even if it is the bestest one) makes a nation evil. Banning demon worship doesn't automatically make a nation Good. Taldor has made a decision that their best interest- their way to unite as a culture against an external threat and maintain what power they still have- is to outlaw that faith. That's a function of power, not truth.
James Jacobs wrote:
The more Taldor bans Sarenrae worship, in other words, the more Taldor shifts from being Neutral into being Evil, or the more we support the idea that there's a REASON a non-evil nation would want to outlaw the kindest religion.
Cultural misunderstanding, long-held grudges, and basic xenophobia are all perfectly justifiable reasons to have Taldor outlaw her worship. That is irrespective of the actual content or precepts of the faith.
If nothing else, it reinforces Taldor cultural identity to differentiate themselves from a foreign menace. When the US added "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, it wasn't based on an outpouring of heart-felt faith, but as a means to differentiate the Us from the Them, who at that time were the Godless Commies.
It strikes me as reasonable- even plausible- that other nations may have a similar knee-jerk reaction when confronted by an outside force which seems to have a monolithic characteristic.
Only evil outsiders. And then only when he's sure they're not some special snowflake, because Always Evil races are stereotypical and biased.
Mystically Inclined wrote:
I was at a game where this happened. One player was playing a very very charismatic Halfling paladin, and attempting to smooth over a situation with some of the local guards.
"Gentlemen, surely we can overcome this misunderstanding..." *rolls a natural 1* "... you bunch of cock-nosed whoresons."
We laughed and laughed.
The "fluff" is the reason for the mechanics. Where do you suppose the Paladins derive their 4th level divine spells and swift action heals and combat oriented Charisma uses?
Want a Samurai? Play a Samurai. Want a Knight Templar? Play a Cavalier. Want a Jedi Knight? Play a Magus.
You want a mechanical advantage without the baggage? Homerule away. But don't call it a Paladin. You want great power without great responsibility. That's fine, but it isn't a Paladin.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
My own personal pet peeve.
Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."
Don't care what mythology, modern media, anime, or anyone else says. Don't care who else has questionable motives, or engages in questionable means. Don't care if the standard is too rigorous.
Don't let them bring you down. Hold yourself higher.
Praise be to you, Oh Opener of the Way!Hail to you, Oh Mother of Souls!
I ask that You may Open the way for us through this life,
As you do for the blessed deceased.
That you would shield us from all Evil.
And Preserve us from the temptations of our lower selves.
Guardian of the blessed dead
Mistress of the Spire of Judgment
Queen of those who dwell in the Boneyard.
She Who is upon Her Throne,
May we go forth with the Divine blessing.
Whimsy Chris wrote:
According to Mr. Jacobs the North American analog is called Arcadia. I was wondering why, as Arcadia seems to me to be Greek.
Arcadia is a term often used to describe a Utopian pastoral or natural state, which may be consistent with pre-colonial America (harmony with nature attributed to native cultures).
It was also the name that Giovanni da Verrazzano (for whom the NY bridge is named) gave to the coastline from Virginia to New York.
John Lance wrote:
Oh man, so many good memories. First PFS scenario, and the originator of the Hammer of Diplomacy and the cantrip "Detect Picnic Basket"
Is it just me, or does Keen Recollection seem to be vestigial?
You're an INT class with 6 skill ranks/level plus an INT modifier of at least +2 (and more likely 3 or higher). All knowledge skills are class skills. How long after level 3 do you think it would take you to put 1 rank into all the knowledge skills anyway?